You’re both say right things, but I’d like to point a couple of very important moments.
How long should ‘long enough sequence’ be? A player really doesn’t have to open 500+ packs for it to be ‘long enough’. It depends on the odds. For 30% probability (if it’s really 30%) the odds of NOT getting it in 14 attempts are 0.00678223072. So I call 14 pulls as long enough sequence in this case.
And regarding weighted probability - CS had clearly told me that for the same level of cards probability in all packs are the same. So it have to be the same for Seven, Doctor and Keras.
Are the same people who complain about having a .678% event happen to them (14 packs without a specific featured purple) going to complain the next time they open a loot box in gauntlet and get a featured gold, because those odds are at about a similar order of magnitude.
You’re both say right things, but I’d like to point a couple of very important moments.
How long should ‘long enough sequence’ be? A player really doesn’t have to open 500+ packs for it to be ‘long enough’. It depends on the odds. For 30% probability (if it’s really 30%) the odds of NOT getting it in 14 attempts are 0.00678223072. So I call 14 pulls as long enough sequence in this case.
And regarding weighted probability - CS had clearly told me that for the same level of cards probability in all packs are the same. So it have to be the same for Seven, Doctor and Keras.
Are the same people who complain about having a .678% event happen to them (14 packs without a specific featured purple) going to complain the next time they open a loot box in gauntlet and get a featured gold, because those odds are at about a similar order of magnitude.
Well, the answer to your question doesn’t influence the reality with RNG. If they don’t - so what?
Besides we don’t know for sure what are the odds in gauntlet. So it’s kinda manipulative
You’re both say right things, but I’d like to point a couple of very important moments.
How long should ‘long enough sequence’ be? A player really doesn’t have to open 500+ packs for it to be ‘long enough’. It depends on the odds. For 30% probability (if it’s really 30%) the odds of NOT getting it in 14 attempts are 0.00678223072. So I call 14 pulls as long enough sequence in this case.
And regarding weighted probability - CS had clearly told me that for the same level of cards probability in all packs are the same. So it have to be the same for Seven, Doctor and Keras.
The problem with that Bolded part is that although it is unlikely, the odds can still be "beat".......
Thus, a sample size of fourteen {especially one that varies from the parameters of the odds, is NOT a large enough sample. Sorry.
For 30% 14 is more than long enough. Sorry
Except that the real world results proved it was not. Some people just do not like it. Does not make it untrue.
It hasn’t proved anything so far. The fact that others are getting Seven every two pulls doesn’t prove anything really. I’d say that on the contrary this situation - not getting in 14 pulls - can prove that there’s something wrong with RNG. But we don’t know the exact probability. If it’s 30%, I’ve provided the odds, they’re essentially 0.
Have a nice day.
Why was Vicki not expelled from Greendale after she literally stabbed Pierce in the face with a pencil?!?!?
You’re both say right things, but I’d like to point a couple of very important moments.
How long should ‘long enough sequence’ be? A player really doesn’t have to open 500+ packs for it to be ‘long enough’. It depends on the odds. For 30% probability (if it’s really 30%) the odds of NOT getting it in 14 attempts are 0.00678223072. So I call 14 pulls as long enough sequence in this case.
And regarding weighted probability - CS had clearly told me that for the same level of cards probability in all packs are the same. So it have to be the same for Seven, Doctor and Keras.
The problem with that Bolded part is that although it is unlikely, the odds can still be "beat".......
Thus, a sample size of fourteen {especially one that varies from the parameters of the odds, is NOT a large enough sample. Sorry.
For 30% 14 is more than long enough. Sorry
Except that the real world results proved it was not. Some people just do not like it. Does not make it untrue.
It hasn’t proved anything so far. The fact that others are getting Seven every two pulls doesn’t prove anything really. I’d say that on the contrary this situation - not getting in 14 pulls - can prove that there’s something wrong with RNG. But we don’t know the exact probability. If it’s 30%, I’ve provided the odds, they’re essentially 0.
Wooooooah! Now, hold on there. You're saying that a 0.68% chance is essentially a zero percent chance?
Yikes! And with that, I'm out. Just not worth it. Sorry.
You’re both say right things, but I’d like to point a couple of very important moments.
How long should ‘long enough sequence’ be? A player really doesn’t have to open 500+ packs for it to be ‘long enough’. It depends on the odds. For 30% probability (if it’s really 30%) the odds of NOT getting it in 14 attempts are 0.00678223072. So I call 14 pulls as long enough sequence in this case.
And regarding weighted probability - CS had clearly told me that for the same level of cards probability in all packs are the same. So it have to be the same for Seven, Doctor and Keras.
The problem with that Bolded part is that although it is unlikely, the odds can still be "beat".......
Thus, a sample size of fourteen {especially one that varies from the parameters of the odds, is NOT a large enough sample. Sorry.
For 30% 14 is more than long enough. Sorry
Except that the real world results proved it was not. Some people just do not like it. Does not make it untrue.
It hasn’t proved anything so far. The fact that others are getting Seven every two pulls doesn’t prove anything really. I’d say that on the contrary this situation - not getting in 14 pulls - can prove that there’s something wrong with RNG. But we don’t know the exact probability. If it’s 30%, I’ve provided the odds, they’re essentially 0.
Wooooooah! Now, hold on there. You're saying that a 0.68% chance is essentially a zero percent chance?
Yikes! And with that, I'm out. Just not worth it. Sorry.
I tried to explain until my migraine kicked in. People just don't wanna accept stuff some times. If under 1% odds never paid off, no one would ever win a lottery jackpot.......
Why was Vicki not expelled from Greendale after she literally stabbed Pierce in the face with a pencil?!?!?
If we know a guy bought 14 packs (assuming 30% odds) and did not get Seven. And another player (in my fleet) bought 9 packs with no Seven. And another captain (in our fleet family) got 11 packs with no Seven. Can we figure up the odds of that happening, then use it to extrapolate the number packs that would likely have to be purchased to approximate the number of packs that DB may have sold?
It seems like a stretch, but is it possible to extrapolate something like that with our given data?
I tried to explain until my migraine kicked in. People just don't wanna accept stuff some times. If under 1% odds never paid off, no one would ever win a lottery jackpot.......
True. But the "lottery jackpot" of bad luck appears to be won in STT quite often - as well as the one of good luck. I think this is what @Vesmer is referring to. Not that it must not happen but that it should not happen as often as it seems to. So the concern it is not about the odds themselves but the distribution.
Unlikely events on both sides of the scale seem to happen more frequent than the odds would suggest they should.
Wir, die Mirror Tribbles [MiT] haben freie Plätze zu vergeben. Kein Zwang und kein Stress, dafür aber Spaß, Discord und eine nette, hilfsbereite Gemeinschaft, incl. voll ausgebauter Starbase und täglich 700 ISM.
I opened three packs. Commander Keras x2 and Juliana Tainer were my pulls. Way too small a data pool to be of any value whatsoever, but if anyone is trying to collate the shared anecdotal evidence offered in this thread, that's my contribution.
I don't believe personally that there's any underhanded drop rate monkeying going on, but I will concede that there have been a handful of conspicuous shenanigans over the last three years that I can understand the suspicion. (My conspiracy theory is that Surak is weighted in the Gauntlet to have a lower crit chance than displayed for me, but a higher one for my opponent.)
I tried to explain until my migraine kicked in. People just don't wanna accept stuff some times. If under 1% odds never paid off, no one would ever win a lottery jackpot.......
True. But the "lottery jackpot" of bad luck appears to be won in STT quite often - as well as the one of good luck. I think this is what @Vesmer is referring to. Not that it must not happen but that it should not happen as often as it seems to. So the concern it is not about the odds themselves but the distribution.
Unlikely events on both sides of the scale seem to happen more frequent than the odds would suggest they should.
Exactly. Hey, look how many sudden ‘lottery winners’ are out there
I tried to explain until my migraine kicked in. People just don't wanna accept stuff some times. If under 1% odds never paid off, no one would ever win a lottery jackpot.......
True. But the "lottery jackpot" of bad luck appears to be won in STT quite often - as well as the one of good luck. I think this is what @Vesmer is referring to. Not that it must not happen but that it should not happen as often as it seems to. So the concern it is not about the odds themselves but the distribution.
Unlikely events on both sides of the scale seem to happen more frequent than the odds would suggest they should.
Agreed, that is the knee-jerk reaction our flawed human perception would generally make. Luckily for us, being humans, we have the option to work to improve our understanding and reduce our perceptual bias.
Here, take a read of this, for example. It's a short and sweet summary, and several of those points could link back to Vesmer's comments as examples!
I tried to explain until my migraine kicked in. People just don't wanna accept stuff some times. If under 1% odds never paid off, no one would ever win a lottery jackpot.......
True. But the "lottery jackpot" of bad luck appears to be won in STT quite often - as well as the one of good luck. I think this is what @Vesmer is referring to. Not that it must not happen but that it should not happen as often as it seems to. So the concern it is not about the odds themselves but the distribution.
Unlikely events on both sides of the scale seem to happen more frequent than the odds would suggest they should.
Agreed, that is the knee-jerk reaction our flawed human perception would generally make. Luckily for us, being humans, we have the option to work to improve our understanding and reduce our perceptual bias.
Here, take a read of this, for example. It's a short and sweet summary, and several of those points could link back to Vesmer's comments as examples!
Have read the article, haven’t found any connections to my comments. Would you be so kind to point out to me what exactly do you see in connection to my comments?
Actually, I found something connected to your comments there. “when we are investigating a phenomenon, we work hard to identify all possible alternative explanations and carefully rule them out”.
One of possible explanations is that RNG implementation in the game is flawed. You don’t want to consider this alternative. I wonder why.
The article itself is more about statistics, but we talk here about simple probability theory when we know exact values of the odds, so we can apply formulas and interpret the result.
One of possible explanations is that RNG implementation in the game is flawed.
I would not call it a flaw but rather a business model design element. Real RNG is less business friendly than tweaked RNG. Real RNG is what most people assume when they read an odd but it is not what it necessarily means.
Since 2017 games need to communicate the odds for loot boxes according to local laws (e.g. South Korea or China) to be able to publish there. Providers like Google or Apple made a general rule out of it.
When STT was designed this was not the case. For sure no game on the market redesigned their way to determine loot box outcomes just because of these new legislations, (edit: some may have tweaked it for the sake of compliance though). They just calculated odds out of what they had designed before. But this does not mean that every event is really as random as the odd may make you believe.
Fun fact regarding Dilithium: Only if an ingame currency bought for real money inevitably leads to a random outcome odds need to be shown. As Dil can for instance also be spent to instant-recall voyages or shuttles odds are not required for things like Dabo as you cannot buy rolls for real money directly. Wouldn't they sell event characters along with event packs for hard cash they maybe even could avoid to publish odds on these packs. But maybe this will change as well someday. The gambling discussion is not over yet as it still gets well deserved attention from youth protection watchers.
Wir, die Mirror Tribbles [MiT] haben freie Plätze zu vergeben. Kein Zwang und kein Stress, dafür aber Spaß, Discord und eine nette, hilfsbereite Gemeinschaft, incl. voll ausgebauter Starbase und täglich 700 ISM.
It’s virtually impossible for me to add anything significant to my crew in terms of stats. I ended up using over 9k dilithium for one Indignant Seven. After the first 6000 dil without a Seven, and an army of useless Keras (that I’d long since immortalized and froze), I was livid. But I kept trying and managed to get one Seven, then took the rare choice of using honour for 4* citations. I now have my new 1/5* cheesecake Seven toy, and the child within is satisfied.
I don’t regret wasting the dilithium because ultimately I got what I wanted and can add someone to my roster who can contribute something to my overall numbers. But for a while I was p****d off!!
One of possible explanations is that RNG implementation in the game is flawed.
I would not call it a flaw but rather a business model design element. Real RNG is less business friendly than tweaked RNG. Real RNG is what most people assume when they read an odd but it is not what it necessarily means.
Since 2017 games need to communicate the odds for loot boxes according to local laws (e.g. South Korea or China) to be able to publish there. Providers like Google or Apple made a general rule out of it.
When STT was designed this was not the case. For sure no game on the market redesigned their way to determine loot box outcomes just because of these new legislations, (edit: some may have tweaked it for the sake of compliance though). They just calculated odds out of what they had designed before. But this does not mean that every event is really as random as the odd may make you believe.
Fun fact regarding Dilithium: Only if an ingame currency bought for real money inevitably leads to a random outcome odds need to be shown. As Dil can for instance also be spent to instant-recall voyages or shuttles odds are not required for things like Dabo as you cannot buy rolls for real money directly. Wouldn't they sell event characters along with event packs for hard cash they maybe even could avoid to publish odds on these packs. But maybe this will change as well someday. The gambling discussion is not over yet as it still gets well deserved attention from youth protection watchers.
Just wanted to add that afaik the odds must be specified even in the case when loot boxes are bought for in-game currency that can be purchased for real money, not only for real money directly. So for thing like Dabo it also must be specified.
I tried to explain until my migraine kicked in. People just don't wanna accept stuff some times. If under 1% odds never paid off, no one would ever win a lottery jackpot.......
True. But the "lottery jackpot" of bad luck appears to be won in STT quite often - as well as the one of good luck. I think this is what @Vesmer is referring to. Not that it must not happen but that it should not happen as often as it seems to. So the concern it is not about the odds themselves but the distribution.
Unlikely events on both sides of the scale seem to happen more frequent than the odds would suggest they should.
Agreed, that is the knee-jerk reaction our flawed human perception would generally make. Luckily for us, being humans, we have the option to work to improve our understanding and reduce our perceptual bias.
Here, take a read of this, for example. It's a short and sweet summary, and several of those points could link back to Vesmer's comments as examples!
Have read the article, haven’t found any connections to my comments. Would you be so kind to point out to me what exactly do you see in connection to my comments?
Actually, I found something connected to your comments there. “when we are investigating a phenomenon, we work hard to identify all possible alternative explanations and carefully rule them out”.
One of possible explanations is that RNG implementation in the game is flawed. You don’t want to consider this alternative. I wonder why.
The article itself is more about statistics, but we talk here about simple probability theory when we know exact values of the odds, so we can apply formulas and interpret the result.
Did you miss my comment here? I'm not biting, sorry. It's not worth the time or effort to convince a flat-Earther they're wrong.
I tried to explain until my migraine kicked in. People just don't wanna accept stuff some times. If under 1% odds never paid off, no one would ever win a lottery jackpot.......
True. But the "lottery jackpot" of bad luck appears to be won in STT quite often - as well as the one of good luck. I think this is what @Vesmer is referring to. Not that it must not happen but that it should not happen as often as it seems to. So the concern it is not about the odds themselves but the distribution.
Unlikely events on both sides of the scale seem to happen more frequent than the odds would suggest they should.
Agreed, that is the knee-jerk reaction our flawed human perception would generally make. Luckily for us, being humans, we have the option to work to improve our understanding and reduce our perceptual bias.
Here, take a read of this, for example. It's a short and sweet summary, and several of those points could link back to Vesmer's comments as examples!
Have read the article, haven’t found any connections to my comments. Would you be so kind to point out to me what exactly do you see in connection to my comments?
Actually, I found something connected to your comments there. “when we are investigating a phenomenon, we work hard to identify all possible alternative explanations and carefully rule them out”.
One of possible explanations is that RNG implementation in the game is flawed. You don’t want to consider this alternative. I wonder why.
The article itself is more about statistics, but we talk here about simple probability theory when we know exact values of the odds, so we can apply formulas and interpret the result.
Did you miss my comment here? I'm not biting, sorry. It's not worth the time or effort to convince a flat-Earther they're wrong.
Well, I can say the same thing regarding flat-Earther too. It’s good that we agree on this matter.
For 30% probability (if it’s really 30%) the odds of NOT getting it in 14 attempts are 0.00678223072. So I call 14 pulls as long enough sequence in this case.
And if you have 10k players buying these 14 packs you'd expect roughly 7 of them getting none.
edit zeros are difficult...
Captain Lvl 99; Vip0; 552 Unique Immortals; Fleet: Omega Molecules; Base Lvl 134 (MAX); Playing Since March 2016.
Comments
Are the same people who complain about having a .678% event happen to them (14 packs without a specific featured purple) going to complain the next time they open a loot box in gauntlet and get a featured gold, because those odds are at about a similar order of magnitude.
Well, the answer to your question doesn’t influence the reality with RNG. If they don’t - so what?
Besides we don’t know for sure what are the odds in gauntlet. So it’s kinda manipulative
Have a nice day.
Wooooooah! Now, hold on there. You're saying that a 0.68% chance is essentially a zero percent chance?
Yikes! And with that, I'm out. Just not worth it. Sorry.
I tried to explain until my migraine kicked in. People just don't wanna accept stuff some times. If under 1% odds never paid off, no one would ever win a lottery jackpot.......
It seems like a stretch, but is it possible to extrapolate something like that with our given data?
Not that I'm trying to change the subject...
Unlikely events on both sides of the scale seem to happen more frequent than the odds would suggest they should.
I don't believe personally that there's any underhanded drop rate monkeying going on, but I will concede that there have been a handful of conspicuous shenanigans over the last three years that I can understand the suspicion. (My conspiracy theory is that Surak is weighted in the Gauntlet to have a lower crit chance than displayed for me, but a higher one for my opponent.)
Exactly. Hey, look how many sudden ‘lottery winners’ are out there
Thanks, @[Mirror]Sanoa
Agreed, that is the knee-jerk reaction our flawed human perception would generally make. Luckily for us, being humans, we have the option to work to improve our understanding and reduce our perceptual bias.
Here, take a read of this, for example. It's a short and sweet summary, and several of those points could link back to Vesmer's comments as examples!
Have read the article, haven’t found any connections to my comments. Would you be so kind to point out to me what exactly do you see in connection to my comments?
Actually, I found something connected to your comments there. “when we are investigating a phenomenon, we work hard to identify all possible alternative explanations and carefully rule them out”.
One of possible explanations is that RNG implementation in the game is flawed. You don’t want to consider this alternative. I wonder why.
The article itself is more about statistics, but we talk here about simple probability theory when we know exact values of the odds, so we can apply formulas and interpret the result.
Since 2017 games need to communicate the odds for loot boxes according to local laws (e.g. South Korea or China) to be able to publish there. Providers like Google or Apple made a general rule out of it.
When STT was designed this was not the case. For sure no game on the market redesigned their way to determine loot box outcomes just because of these new legislations, (edit: some may have tweaked it for the sake of compliance though). They just calculated odds out of what they had designed before. But this does not mean that every event is really as random as the odd may make you believe.
Fun fact regarding Dilithium: Only if an ingame currency bought for real money inevitably leads to a random outcome odds need to be shown. As Dil can for instance also be spent to instant-recall voyages or shuttles odds are not required for things like Dabo as you cannot buy rolls for real money directly. Wouldn't they sell event characters along with event packs for hard cash they maybe even could avoid to publish odds on these packs. But maybe this will change as well someday. The gambling discussion is not over yet as it still gets well deserved attention from youth protection watchers.
I don’t regret wasting the dilithium because ultimately I got what I wanted and can add someone to my roster who can contribute something to my overall numbers. But for a while I was p****d off!!
Just wanted to add that afaik the odds must be specified even in the case when loot boxes are bought for in-game currency that can be purchased for real money, not only for real money directly. So for thing like Dabo it also must be specified.
Did you miss my comment here? I'm not biting, sorry.
Well, I can say the same thing regarding flat-Earther too. It’s good that we agree on this matter.
My alt pulled 2 packs and recieved 1 Seven.
My OH pulled 5 packs and got no Sevens.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
And if you have 10k players buying these 14 packs you'd expect roughly 7 of them getting none.
edit zeros are difficult...